I'm a new DM running Lost Mine of Phandelver for a group of new players. One thing I'm struggling with is getting the players to trust NPCs.
We've only had one session, and there have already been two encounters where they didn't trust a single word the NPC said. The first incident was the hook for the story, and they almost stalled the whole campaign because they didn't trust the NPC that was setting up the whole thing. The problem is, the mistrust was pretty unfounded.
The second time made a little more sense. The first battle encounter was against some goblins who set an ambush to loot travelers on a side road. The party captured one to interrogate it, but then wouldn't trust any of the info the goblin shared. It makes sense to mistrust an enemy, but this was to a pretty far extreme.
is this something I should try to overcome? Do they just need to play for a while and they'll get the hang of it? Should I address it OOG? Any advice is helpful.
The PC's need to learn and utilize the Insight check, and you need to reassure them based off their checks. If they roll well, they'll get a good idea the intentions of the NPC. If they don't roll well, they'll either be mislead (by you) or learn nothing.
That's a good point. I'll lead them in that direction and do my best to make them feel okay about the NPC. Can't believe I forgot about the insight check. #noob
I posted elsewhere on this in more detail. basically insight helps them get an idea but NPCs have to actually be trustworthy. An npc not willing to give them information they need or holds info back is going to the untrust category no matter the roll.
Also watch how often you have an NPC betray the party. You can easily get away with it once or maybe twice a campaign but after that no NPC is getting trusted.
I understand the in-game dynamic of trustworthiness based on the Interplay between the PCs and NPCs. This was less of an evaluation of the character and more of a default setting of "suspect everyone." Felt more like it was in the vein of metagaming.
Depends on whether or not the NPC withheld any information from the PCs. If so then it isn't meta gaming as common sense would indicate that you shouldn't trust someone who withholds information from you.
I feel like I should also state that in the first case, the NPC is not betraying the party. The information he is withholding is not immediately relevant to the job he proposed to the party. He is - and remains throughout - a trusted friend of the party. He helps the party at one point also. The point I’m getting at is that the group was predisposed to mistrust him. There were no cues to make them think he was untrustworthy. The situation is literally, “An old and trusted friend asks you to escort a wagonload of supplies to a mining town. If the players ask what he is doing, he replies that he can’t give details right now, but it’s big.” So he’s not trying to hide that he’s not giving them 100% of the info. If they don’t trust him and walk away, the game is over before it starts.
If I may give an advice, make sure that the player understand that what you are describing is the adventure hook. Somehow, the players must either know the NPC or be sent to meet it.
They do not need to trust it, but they are supposed to accept its quest.
If I may give an advice, make sure that the player understand that what you are describing is the adventure hook. Somehow, the players must either know the NPC or be sent to meet it.
They do not need to trust it, but they are supposed to accept its quest.
So many of the people I have played with would potentially deny the quest if they don't trust the npc and opt to do something else instead.
Then again I guess we are the type not to play published adventures and to allow freedom during a game.
I feel like I should also state that in the first case, the NPC is not betraying the party. The information he is withholding is not immediately relevant to the job he proposed to the party. He is - and remains throughout - a trusted friend of the party. He helps the party at one point also. The point I’m getting at is that the group was predisposed to mistrust him. There were no cues to make them think he was untrustworthy. The situation is literally, “An old and trusted friend asks you to escort a wagonload of supplies to a mining town. If the players ask what he is doing, he replies that he can’t give details right now, but it’s big.” So he’s not trying to hide that he’s not giving them 100% of the info. If they don’t trust him and walk away, the game is over before it starts.
Exactly. The moment an NPC says " I can't tell you but" he goes on the do not trust and maybe kill him now list before he double crosses us. I haven't actually read the adventure to know what happens. I'm just saying that players will quickly not trust an NPC who withholds information. Whether fair or not to the NPC is largely irrelevant.
Basically players have played too many games where the npc that says oh I can't tell you ends up doing something evil and questionable or completely betrays the party.
If it is a side quest, sure. But it is the adventure hook of the main quest. It is the only moment where the game makes the decision for the characters.
Once again I've never played in a game where you had to take the quest and couldnt do whatever you wanted. The whole idea of a roleplaying game is being able to do that.
Which is why I don't understand why people like playing published campaigns where you are forced to do that.
Still the point is that if an NPC withholds information you are just asking the party to not trust him. So I'd say those important quests should never have an npc who won't tell the PCs everything.
Games I've played in we have had a tendency to ruin the DMs hours of planning, usually because of not trusting an NPC.
Genrally, you plant the hooks, you give the PCs the opportunity to decide to go in a different direction. Personally I like to have multiple things planned or use hooks the PCs are going to go for.
For the Campaign im working on, I'm borrowing the caravan approach from Lost mines, but starting the game where the PCs have been hired or are traveling in the caravan to the next city.
If the PCs decide that they aren't getting paid enough or don't trust the guy, they are free to wonder off into the big world.... Possibly running into the encounters I already had planned without knowing it.
But again, I haven't played in a game using pre-published campaigns nor have I ran one. If I did I'd probably develop a plan B in case the PCs didn't follow the hook that will ultimately lead them back into the story.
Games I've played in we have had a tendency to ruin the DMs hours of planning, usually because of not trusting an NPC.
Genrally, you plant the hooks, you give the PCs the opportunity to decide to go in a different direction. Personally I like to have multiple things planned or use hooks the PCs are going to go for.
For the Campaign im working on, I'm borrowing the caravan approach from Lost mines, but starting the game where the PCs have been hired or are traveling in the caravan to the next city.
If the PCs decide that they aren't getting paid enough or don't trust the guy, they are free to wonder off into the big world.... Possibly running into the encounters I already had planned without knowing it.
But again, I haven't played in a game using pre-published campaigns nor have I ran one. If I did I'd probably develop a plan B in case the PCs didn't follow the hook that will ultimately lead them back into the story.
Thanks for your input everyone. NLH, I think you play a different kind of game from what I’m trying to do. Sounds like your group keeps the DM on their toes.
Thanks for your input everyone. NLH, I think you play a different kind of game from what I’m trying to do. Sounds like your group keeps the DM on their toes.
Yeah! But seriously I understand that, but that drive to make your own choices is what makes a tabletop game different from video games and players even when playing published games want the freedom of choice.
Bascially, yes players can go along because they know it's a published game and that's how it is. But a lifetime friend who hides information is a bit sketchy and some players aren't willing to suspend belief enough to trust them.
Sounds to me like 1) your players were just giving you a hard time or 2) more likely they were basically saying we don't trust this guy... If you want us to dont have our really good long time friend shaft us by keeping us in the dark.
I basically get the idea that your PCs aren't fond of being railroaded beyond what makes sense to them and that was their way of letting you know.
Yeah that's probably how the adventure was written, but I think it's good to be aware that NPCs can't hide info from PCs if you want them to maintain their choice in accepting the outcome.
If this is a continuing problem they default to mistrust on every dang NPC, give them a living world.
NPC's who don't want anything from them or very little. Children and elderly and clearly noncombatant characters who are just living, convince your party they live in this world that's not exclusively out to get them. Try very hard to not make the farmer who points the way just a talking street sign.
The easiest way to get around the 'PCs ignoring the first adventure hook' problem is to start the game *after* the PCs already accepted the quest. That way you have *somewhere* to start - preferably somewhere there will be action in the first few moments in the story - so you can have a dynamic opening rather than several hours of people talking and figuring out what's what.
Basically, games are best started in action, not in negotiations - unless those negotiations are action (not every game is about beating people in the face, after all). Games really shouldn't start out with low stakes in the first scene unless you really want a slow opening.
It's essentially the same advice given to writers - start your game off with something interesting. If you start off with something boring, people won't want to continue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm a new DM running Lost Mine of Phandelver for a group of new players. One thing I'm struggling with is getting the players to trust NPCs.
We've only had one session, and there have already been two encounters where they didn't trust a single word the NPC said. The first incident was the hook for the story, and they almost stalled the whole campaign because they didn't trust the NPC that was setting up the whole thing. The problem is, the mistrust was pretty unfounded.
The second time made a little more sense. The first battle encounter was against some goblins who set an ambush to loot travelers on a side road. The party captured one to interrogate it, but then wouldn't trust any of the info the goblin shared. It makes sense to mistrust an enemy, but this was to a pretty far extreme.
is this something I should try to overcome? Do they just need to play for a while and they'll get the hang of it? Should I address it OOG? Any advice is helpful.
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
InsidersThe PC's need to learn and utilize the Insight check, and you need to reassure them based off their checks. If they roll well, they'll get a good idea the intentions of the NPC. If they don't roll well, they'll either be mislead (by you) or learn nothing.
A dwarf with a canoe on his back? What could go wrong?
That's a good point. I'll lead them in that direction and do my best to make them feel okay about the NPC. Can't believe I forgot about the insight check. #noob
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
I posted elsewhere on this in more detail. basically insight helps them get an idea but NPCs have to actually be trustworthy. An npc not willing to give them information they need or holds info back is going to the untrust category no matter the roll.
Also watch how often you have an NPC betray the party. You can easily get away with it once or maybe twice a campaign but after that no NPC is getting trusted.
I understand the in-game dynamic of trustworthiness based on the Interplay between the PCs and NPCs. This was less of an evaluation of the character and more of a default setting of "suspect everyone." Felt more like it was in the vein of metagaming.
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
Depends on whether or not the NPC withheld any information from the PCs. If so then it isn't meta gaming as common sense would indicate that you shouldn't trust someone who withholds information from you.
I feel like I should also state that in the first case, the NPC is not betraying the party. The information he is withholding is not immediately relevant to the job he proposed to the party. He is - and remains throughout - a trusted friend of the party. He helps the party at one point also. The point I’m getting at is that the group was predisposed to mistrust him. There were no cues to make them think he was untrustworthy. The situation is literally, “An old and trusted friend asks you to escort a wagonload of supplies to a mining town. If the players ask what he is doing, he replies that he can’t give details right now, but it’s big.” So he’s not trying to hide that he’s not giving them 100% of the info. If they don’t trust him and walk away, the game is over before it starts.
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
If I may give an advice, make sure that the player understand that what you are describing is the adventure hook. Somehow, the players must either know the NPC or be sent to meet it.
They do not need to trust it, but they are supposed to accept its quest.
If it is a side quest, sure. But it is the adventure hook of the main quest. It is the only moment where the game makes the decision for the characters.
Once again I've never played in a game where you had to take the quest and couldnt do whatever you wanted. The whole idea of a roleplaying game is being able to do that.
Which is why I don't understand why people like playing published campaigns where you are forced to do that.
Still the point is that if an NPC withholds information you are just asking the party to not trust him. So I'd say those important quests should never have an npc who won't tell the PCs everything.
If that is so, how do you start an "adventure" (both as player and a DM)?
Games I've played in we have had a tendency to ruin the DMs hours of planning, usually because of not trusting an NPC.
Genrally, you plant the hooks, you give the PCs the opportunity to decide to go in a different direction. Personally I like to have multiple things planned or use hooks the PCs are going to go for.
For the Campaign im working on, I'm borrowing the caravan approach from Lost mines, but starting the game where the PCs have been hired or are traveling in the caravan to the next city.
If the PCs decide that they aren't getting paid enough or don't trust the guy, they are free to wonder off into the big world.... Possibly running into the encounters I already had planned without knowing it.
But again, I haven't played in a game using pre-published campaigns nor have I ran one. If I did I'd probably develop a plan B in case the PCs didn't follow the hook that will ultimately lead them back into the story.
Thanks for your input everyone. NLH, I think you play a different kind of game from what I’m trying to do. Sounds like your group keeps the DM on their toes.
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
Yes. But those hooks are free to be ignored, negotiated with, taken up at another time, or any other combination.
More like if the PCs start not trusting someone you should give them just enough information to quiet their fears of being double crossed and played.
You can always come up with an additional hook to bring the players back into the adventure or a side adventure that loops back around.
If this is a continuing problem they default to mistrust on every dang NPC, give them a living world.
NPC's who don't want anything from them or very little. Children and elderly and clearly noncombatant characters who are just living, convince your party they live in this world that's not exclusively out to get them. Try very hard to not make the farmer who points the way just a talking street sign.
The easiest way to get around the 'PCs ignoring the first adventure hook' problem is to start the game *after* the PCs already accepted the quest. That way you have *somewhere* to start - preferably somewhere there will be action in the first few moments in the story - so you can have a dynamic opening rather than several hours of people talking and figuring out what's what.
Basically, games are best started in action, not in negotiations - unless those negotiations are action (not every game is about beating people in the face, after all). Games really shouldn't start out with low stakes in the first scene unless you really want a slow opening.
It's essentially the same advice given to writers - start your game off with something interesting. If you start off with something boring, people won't want to continue.